Say what you want about its authority, but no work of literature has ever wielded as powerful of imagery as has the Bible. Those were some good passages from Revelations.

Have you read a lot of classic literature? I've pretty much only read certain periods of English literature (mostly Modernist/Romantic and specific authors like Shakespeare), but any notable poet of those periods greatly surpasses anything in the Bible as far as literary skill...

(For an example of something similar in ... purpose[?], T. S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" invokes incredible imagery and emotion [regardless if you understand the underlying allegory or not] and is one of the most beautifully haunting poems I've read... I would not say the same about Revelations, nor the Bible.)

The Bible has one of the most complex literary devices of all time. There is the Masoreh, there are the numerous nested layers of each chapter of each book. Have you ever studied the structure of the Bible? You might be surprised how complex it is, and how much skill it took to write it the way it was.

I am not willing to believe that I understand everything, or that it can be as simple and clear-cut as people make it out to be.

This.

It can be rather demanding to deal with the complex modern world, that's why people try to seek simple solutions / absolute truths all the time. It's so much more relaxing when you feel you've sorted it all out for certain. If your ideology is religious, you'll get an express ticket for salvation on top of it for free. Rather comforting. Then there's this book that will resolve every cognitive dissonance if you look long enough. Of course, the small residual doubts have to be dealt with. That's why you have to offensively laugh at the "fools" who haven't grasped absolute truth yet. Makes you feel even more secure. Because that's what you want in this confusing world. I can understand that.

Fortunately, burning the "fools" who think otherwise has been out of fashion for quite a while in the western world. But this is the ultimate consequence of this line of thinking. We can even see the tendency in this thread: Those who don't agree immediately must surely be immoral and sinners. Yeah, right.

Edit:I'm not saying all religious people follow this pattern. Just the militant types are suspicious.^^

Well, Jesus himself was rather "noncompliant" regarding the authorities of his day...

As for the bible, it is certainly one of the most important literary works of all time and without doubt there's much wisdom in it. I've read some of it just because of the style, imagery and language. It varies a lot, though. By the way, I don't think you can compare "literary skill" so easily, it's just so different a genre.

I figured it out now. They don't want the creator to be proven to them because they enjoy sinful things they are doing. If the creator is realized to them they would have to stop the things they enjoy. They think ignorance is a get into haven free card.

Sad news buddies you want be able to say you did not know and think you can slide in like with everyone else when the time comes. Childish thinking humans are capable of.

To anyone who says I'm forcing my religion on you. Grow up. I'm merely showing you a door. Walk through it or don't. Where you go in life is up to you. Believe what I say or don't. Your life is in your own hands. Do what you will with it.

Fighting words, but you are showing people a door while simultaneously warning them that they will go into everlasting punishment if they choose not to walk through it. I fully accept that you believe this is simply the truth and you have no intention of being manipulative. However, I am also trying to help you understand how it comes across. By all means offer religion to people who could benefit from it, but leave out the part about punishment.

The sensible approach to this thread would have been to attack my summary of the so-called "proofs" in the video and defend them with logic, reason, or further evidence. Or, if you don't believe this video series proves anything then to agree with that and let the thread die there. You'll note that nobody has done this.

Fighting words, but you are showing people a door while simultaneously warning them that they will go into everlasting punishment if they choose not to walk through it.

Less of a "door" and more of a heavily armed "gate", or better yet, a figment of their imagination! This door or gate exists only in their own minds. There is no such door or gate. Even a figurative or metaphorical door does not exist. I used to be a believer in this bullshit. Saying you're merely "showing a door" is either a blatant lie or a delusion.

By all means offer religion to people who could benefit from it, but leave out the part about punishment.

It's not up to anyone else to determine whether or not religion can benefit somebody. People that need it will seek it out. Everybody else doesn't need it. Giving them the freedom to decide such a thing is a mistake because in their own minds everybody could benefit from it.

They cannot leave out the part about the punishment. It's impossible to sell the delusion without it. "You must dedicate your life to the interpretations of a compilation of books written by an ancient people in a foreign language, no matter how absurd they seem, and just have faith that everything is true, even when it seems to contradict itself."

"What if I don't?"

"Nothing! You'll probably be completely fine. So, will I see you next Sunday?"

Threats are all they have. They're most effective against women and children.

That God fellow sure is an asshole. I swear, if I hear one more religious nut tell me that God loves me, but also hates me and that I'm going to hell, I'm going to lose it. Just recently after finishing a job at a church, the pastor was incredibly rude to me about my "choices." As a result, I'm done dealing with those people. Until the nuts can learn to practice some basic human decency towards members of the LGBT crowd, I'm going to continue to decline any and all IT work requested from them.

Besides, God allowed their computers to become fucked up. Who am I to fix their mistakes?

Until the nuts can learn to practice some basic human decency towards members of the LGBT crowd

I always find it funny how the Evangelical Lutheran Church (largest Lutheran denomination in the US) supports gays (we even have a gay-married bishop) and the Missouri synod (second largest Lutheran denomination in the US) excommunicates every gay and believes they all go straight to hell. Not only do both believe in the same Bible, they are both Christian churches, and on top of that both protestant and Lutheran within Christianity... and yet believe in completely opposite things o_O

I'm Lutheran myself and of course think synods like the Missouri synod are completely wrong (not to even speak of other denomination like Catholicism... I think all Catholics go straight to hell) or other religions...

However, my personal interpretation of the Bible is that quoting it makes little sense. Versions like the NIV (or worse, KJV) were heavily modified over the centuries and have little to do with the original text. So whenever someone quotes something from the NIV or KJV, I wonder if it was added by some Catholic scribe in the 9th century or if it was truly in the original Bible.

Good quote, thanks. I'll have to sit down and study this chapter more in depth tomorrow.

I love discussing t he bible with fellow believers, provided we can all agree that the bible is our foundation and we will believe what it says without twisting it. It can be quite rewarding to have someone like you quote a passage and study it in depth.

But debating the word of God with scoffers and mockers? There is absolutely no value at all in that, I will not waste my time arguing. It can be fun to watch them get upset when I refuse to engage them in arguing but instead quote the word of God in reply, after all, God has the answers, I don't need to make anything up. They can get angry, call me everything but a white man, I won't respond, I've heard it all before. To me it would be like getting involved in a debate over which is better, the Commodore 64 or the Atari 800. It's all pointless and old (the C64 is by the way).

However, my personal interpretation of the Bible is that quoting it makes little sense. Versions like the NIV (or worse, KJV) were heavily modified over the centuries and have little to do with the original text.

You need to study this more in depth, as I have. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered, the oldest bible text they had was 1000 years younger than the dead sea scrolls, yet when they compared the dead sea scrolls to the text they had, even though there was 1000 years difference in age, they discovered that they were, word for word, precisely the same. This is because of how the bible text is copied. Generally there would be several people copying, one person speaking the text, another writing. If a mistake was made, the page was burned and started over again. So errors are unheard of. Other historical texts are more prone to error and treated with less respect, yet it is rare that people question them.

There are two sets of manuscripts that most translations come from. There is debate over which is more accurate. I tend to prefer the NIV as it is missing verses which do not appear in the older manuscripts, which makes sense. If you have two documents, both copies of the same text, but one is older, and one is newer, and the newer manuscript has added verses, than it is clear that someone added verses. This is the case with the manuscripts the KJV and such were translated from. You will find added verses (one the Catholics obviously added, they were famous for that). And other verses were altered, but not for any deceptive means, someone thought it would be a good idea to harmonize the new testament books. That is to say, when you have two books which tell the same story, they would alter one book so the story more closely matches the other. Their intention was good, but it was still wrong to do. This has lead people into believing that verses and words etc... were removed from the NIV for some nefarious reason. The fact is, the NIV is based off of older manuscripts which simply do not have certain verses and words on them. It is more accurate. The translation itself is done a little differently in that they try and translate the meaning of the sentence, rather than a word for word translation (though they do try and keep it accurate above all). And this makes sense, anyone who know more than one language knows you cannot simply do a word for word exact translation, you have to translate what the sentence means, often with different words in a different order (French to English is a good example, where you will say an adjective after a noun in French, and in English you say the adjective first, a word for word translation would be confusing). I agree with this method. But as with all translations, you will have problems, simply because often you run across a word in Greek for example (new testament was written in Greek) which will have more than one possible meaning, but where there is no equivalent English word with the same number of different meanings, so you have to pick an English word which more closely matches the original meaning. So you have to take into account context, but often there is disagreement. In my own studies I have found that people will say the NIV got some word wrong. When I looked into it I found out they did not, but that the original Greek word could have meant the word that was used for the same verse in the KJV, and for the verse in the NIV. As English we see them as separate, but in Greek it is not. This leads to confusion and often conspiracy theories (usually against the NIV). But you can look into the original text and determine what was originally written, all that is well documented. Strong's Concordance is a good resource as well as many lexicons which help you determine the proper meaning.

As for different churches getting different meanings out of the bible. Usually that is coloured by their preconceived doctrines, and they will try and twist the bible to match, rather than read the bible, and simply believe what it says. John 3:13 for example clearly states that no man has ever went to heaven except Jesus. That blows away all church heaven doctrines. The word "Hell" is translated from no less than FOUR different words! It is also a false doctrine. Most of the time you read "Hell" or the Greek "Hades" it simply means "the grave". The problem is, most people believe their preachers who are teaching lies, rather than studying their bible. If you support gays in your church than your church is wrong. The word of God clearly states it is wrong in both the old and the new testament and in ALL translations, you simply cannot support that and say it is okay and claim you are a Christian. I can quote the verses, there is no misunderstanding that. But I don't wish to get into that here.

If you do not get your information on your Christian beliefs from the word of God, than WHERE are you getting it from?! Men?! Seriously??

That's one area I don't have a problem with. Churches. I don't attend ANY. I have no label like Catholic (the exact OPPOSITE of a true Christian church), I am not Lutheran or any other label. I abhor all those "churches", they almost all teach the opposite of what the bible says.

Go ahead, show me from your bible where it says you go to heaven when you die. You cannot find it. But I can find where it says you do not (John 3:13) and where the dead are DEAD and in there GRAVES when Jesus returns. if the dead go to heaven or hell when they die... who does Jesus resurrect from the grave when he returns?! Why did Jesus resurrect Lazarus after he was dead for four days, wasn't he in heaven by then? If people are judged guilty and sent to hell at the moment of death, or good and sent to heaven when they die, than WHO does Jesus resurrect?!?! And WHY is there a judgment day, for WHO?! Weren't they already judged when they died?! THINK! Read your bible and quit believing LIES.

The reason why many churches have many different and often opposing doctrines is because their doctrines are usually all man made and not from the bible AT ALL.

If you think I am unchristian that way, you should try insulting me to my face and see how unchristian I get on people. You would be out cold on the pavement. (hey, I never said I was perfect, but I am working on that)

If you think I am unchristian that way, you should try insulting me to my face and see how unchristian I get on people. You would be out cold on the pavement. (hey, I never said I was perfect, but I am working on that)

This is an absolutely perfect example of what the net worth of this bullshit is. None. They don't take it seriously, but everybody else is supposed to. Hahahahaha.

So please, don't come and say "My lord greatest 'o' the greatest, ...tonofshitslater... amen". Because it is not great, it's not even real unless in your mind if you have faith in it.

Your religion is like the tons of others around and before: a bloody little bastard one.

And god does not exist. I'm sorry for you, I also would have loved to see some of the magics in my younger's read to be real, but it's not.

And I don't see why your god would exist more than the tons of other one.

And a dead sea scroll of 2010 of 2030 years old is not that old. We have paints of existing religions way before that one. And they were better because see, they had super strange looking magical creatures (Inca, Aztec, Egyptians i.e). That is something else than falling frogs and separated sea, or a burning talking wood (that one still make me lmfao).

You all religious terrorists. And part of your mind is living 2000 years in the past.

When I was 5/6 years old I believed in God, and Santa, and I thought dragons had once existed. By about 9/10 I had grown out of that. Now, as an adult, I don't believe in anything like Santa, dragons, or any of that other made up rubbish. I know children do, but like I say, people usually grow out of it.

I'm not exactly sure about the connection between planes and atheism. You realize you cannot tell someone's beliefs based on what they invent right? Solomon built a temple for God, Egyptians built the pyramids based on their beliefs.

Isaac Newton believed in God, most of the greatest scientists that came up with theories we used today did in fact (including theories used in flight).

Neil: while I understand your above image is meant as a bit of a joke, I'm guessing it is something that you actually believe. The only one that believes that there was nothing and then magically there was something is religious folks; in fact, isn't that the core of your religion?

Aside from that, it is neither consistent with atheism nor scientific theories on the beginning of the universe (In reality, it's more like "We don't know how it happened, but we see absolutely no reason to even suggest it was because of magic").

I'm not a religious person, but I don't consider the belief that an entity had influenced the creation of the universe is less likely than the belief that all matter in the universe (and the natural laws that govern it) simply always existed on its own and there never was a time it didn't exist.

Neil, on a more serious note than my aeroplane troll, I think my view on religion is that it can be a valuable personal belief system that doesn't really impact one's choices in life. (We know that atheists and religious people can both behave ethically and not.) With that in mind, what would you say is the personal value you gain from believing?

Others who have been arguing for their religion in this thread are also welcome to answer this question.

For what its worth, I've always defended others' right to practice religion in any way they see fit (so long as it is within the law), even the crazies shouting hateful things in my general direction. In return, I reserve my right to call them crazy and avoid having to deal with their nonsense.